MPs' expenses: The House of Commons is ours, not theirs. Don't ruin it, reclaim it

Our thirst for revenge over the expenses scandal is understandable but there is an alternative, says Charles Moore

7:21PM BST 15 May 2009

We must save the House of Commons. I never thought that, in writing such a sentence, I would be swimming against the tide of British public opinion, but people are so angry about the revelations of MPs' expenses that they seem not to care what happens to the entire institution.

It matters, though, because it is ours. Its Members sit there only at our pleasure. We can – and I hope we will – throw out all those whose behaviour has incurred our displeasure. But we must not turn into the bloodthirsty Paris mob after 1789. Writing about the French Revolution, Edmund Burke said: "Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation and foresight can build up in a hundred years." It remains a useful warning. Watching BBC's Question Time on Thursday night, I felt an unexpected emotion – a twinge of pity for Mrs Margaret Beckett. Righteous anger can turn plain ugly.

The Daily Telegraph still has a great deal of interesting information to set before its readers. But after more than a week of its reports, we can say that – in scope, if not in every detail – we now know the worst.

Eventually, it will be helpful to know the best as well. Once all the data are made public, voters can draw up lists of MPs who are without stain. Armed with computer discs about the good, the bad and the in-between, we shall be able to put pressure on parties, constituency associations and, of course, through the ballot box, to get the sort of MPs we want.

For the sort of House of Commons we want. This is the bit which, strangely, has been little discussed. There are two ways that we could now go, and I fear that the public mood is to prefer the wrong one.

The first way is to decide that MPs have been so despicable that they need to come under greater control. Some external authority – as yet undefined – will watch over them. They will work exclusively as MPs. If they are housed at our expense, it will be in barracks, with prefects to make sure they are all in bed by lights-out at 10.30. There will be regular inspections of the contents of their boots. The logic is that if you cannot trust MPs, you cannot allow them to have much power. So parliamentary government collapses.

The second way is counter-intuitive. It is to say that so many MPs have such bad morals because they have become demoralised. They have ceased to believe in their own institution. Therefore, the way to get good MPs is to re-empower the institution, on our own behalf.

In the last 40 years, Parliament has given away much of its authority to the European Union, quangos, bureaucracies and courts. Since 1997, the Government has grabbed greater control of the legislative timetable and therefore almost always gets its way. The great function of Parliament – to make the right laws and decide the level of taxes – has become almost nominal. And so the motive for entering the place has changed. You start as a backbencher nowadays, only to become a frontbencher.

People complain about MPs having "second jobs". They do not realise that the most common second job – and the one which produces the biggest conflict of interest – is being a minister.

If you are a minister, you lose your independence. You have to take the side of the government rather than of Parliament and people. You are in a chamber physically shaped for argument (the word "parliament" means a place where talking goes on), and yet argument is what you want to suppress. For centuries, MPs fought for parliamentary "privilege". This meant the right to vote and debate without intimidation from the king. But "the king" – whose modern equivalent is the government – has regained control. Now, when MPs talk of their privileges, they mean things like the additional costs allowance and free sausage rolls.

To start making proper laws once more, MPs should have almost no allowances, and modest wages. In return, they should be free to earn money by other means, so long as we know what those means are. They will learn much more about the rest of life than if they sit in Westminster all day and all night. The privileges they should be granted are of power, not money.

Why, for example, can the Government appoint people to public bodies (all 43,000 of them) without parliamentary approval? Why is European legislation not properly scrutinised? Why should the whips decide who chairs which parliamentary committee? Why can an MP become a minister – and therefore take "on office of profit under the Crown" – without consulting his constituents? Until the early 20th century, any MP offered a ministerial job had to fight a by-election. If you brought that rule back, the Government would think twice about swelling its "payroll vote", and the public could put the needs of the Commons before those of the executive. All possible mechanisms should change to shift the balance of power and the focus of ambition.

But how? This week, David Cameron has been pushing hard for changes to the system. His first motive is political – to be seen to be on the right side. But he has a second reason for acting as he does: he knows the House of Commons big-wigs – the senior MPs whose task it is to maintain the rights of Parliament – have been slowest to understand the problem. Commons conduct should be a matter for such figures, not party leaders, but they have proved useless.

None more so than Mr Speaker Martin. It does not matter that he is a slow-witted, inarticulate Glaswegian. Perhaps it does not even matter that he is over-fond of travelling in chauffeur-driven cars and taking his wife on jollies at public expense. What does matter is whose side he is on.

He is on the side of the executive and against the public. His attitude to the rights of Parliament is like that of a TGWU shop steward towards strike ballots during the Winter of Discontent. He was put in by order of the Labour whips, and his idea of the job is to defend every excess and regard every parliamentary critic as a scab.

Douglas Carswell MP has boldly tabled a motion expressing no confidence in Mr Speaker, and next week Mr Speaker himself will have to decide whether to allow it to be debated. The private fact is that MPs do not have confidence in Mr Martin. The time has come when they should share that thought with the rest of us. They should stab Mr Martin in the front, not the back.

When they choose his replacement, it will be, under new rules, by secret ballot, and therefore not controlled by the Government. This could be the Commons' last, best chance to choose a man or woman who will insist on the necessary reform. If they do not, they might be swept away.